brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Back to the Past
Lately I have been pondering the thought of how we were back about last June-July. Back then users had to have 100 mainspace edits to vote on adminship requests or b'crats. This was also true with BOTM but that I don't see how that should be. Yet is this rule still in place: You must have 100 mainspace edits to vote in adminship requests and chat mod requests or is this a rule that is out of place? 19:35, March 18, 2012 (UTC) *We need that rule back so people can't just ask new people to vote for them. * While in principle I'm against the rule, in practice I find myself agreeing with Clone. * Pretty sure that's outdated and should be removed 22:38, March 18, 2012 (UTC) * Kill it. FB100Z • talk • 00:36, March 19, 2012 (UTC) * I think we should keep it; I see a lot of new users voting for other new users (especially for chat mod rights) when they don't really know them or how they act. 15:58, March 19, 2012 (UTC) * Yeah, we should start enforcing that again IMO, for a number of reasons. For example without that rule in place canvassing has been a LOT easier for people, as all they need to do is PM new people on chat and tell them to vote for them. Also, per SSX, most new users have no idea how responsible/irresponsible said user would be if promoted. - 19:31, March 19, 2012 (UTC) *Keep it, it keeps out any people that are unwilling to do anything to help. And it keeps users from asking new users to vote for them. -- 21:19, March 19, 2012 (UTC) ---- The entire point of the new discussion system is that we don't need this. Someone supporting with "i think he good chatmod he told me 2 suprt" isn't going to have nearly as much consideration put on their reasoning as someone who lists why they should be a chatmod. That being said, if people don't understand this it might be better to just go back to straw polls for user rights requests, though still encouraging people to use reasons. 21:21, March 19, 2012 (UTC) I have a new proposal. You're only allowed to vote if you satisfy all of these conditions: * You must have 100 mainspace edits. * You must have shown a level of interaction with the candidate; as judged by the Gunther–Doheny Scale of Social Interaction, you must have a rating of at least 50/100, or 30/100 if you have been an administrator for at least two (2) weeks. * You must have edited a template at least once in the past 50 days, adding at least 5 pairs of curly brackets or 10 pairs of square brackets. * You must not have shown hate in the past month. Hateful interactions are defined by the table in of the Wiki Code, Version 2.1a, with the alteration that "idiot" is upgraded to level 2 (level 3 for rollbackers and administrators, and level 4 for patrollers). * You must have used the template in the past week. If the candidate was a rollbacker one year ago, you must have used it in the past two (2) days. Every time a voter casts a ballot, all other users must immediately rush through his contributions list and ensure that the checklist is met. It may be a waste of time, but at least it keeps those bungling newbies off our big important things. FB100Z • talk • 00:52, March 20, 2012 (UTC) * *sigh* As already stated, this is just due to the page not being updated, wherever it is. I would remove it myself if I knew where it was... there's no need ot be sarcastic about it :/ And there's really no need to be discussing this further- the discussion forum decided that the new discussion would apply to URR, but not to BOTM. Mr. Minifigure, if you could either point me to the page and I'll remove it, or you can remove it yourself and I can close this forum. Thanks. 00:59, March 20, 2012 (UTC) ** What's this new "zero tolerance for fooling around" policy I hear about? :P FB100Z • talk • 01:03, March 20, 2012 (UTC) *** Forums are for complaining. Fun is reserved for the Template namespace ;) 01:12, March 20, 2012 (UTC) **** New rule! New rule! Every time you crack a joke in the Template namespace, you get two WikiPoints (which can be spent to buy extra votes)! :D FB100Z • talk • 01:31, March 20, 2012 (UTC)